Collaborative Writing of Argumentative Syntheses by Low Performing Undergraduate Writers: Explicit Instruction and Practice

Reading and Writing (2023) 36:909–936
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x
Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses

by low‑performing undergraduate writers: explicit
instruction and practice
Miriam Granado‑Peinado1 · Isabel Cuevas2 · Ricardo Olmos3 ·

Elena Martín2 · Lidia Casado‑Ledesma5 · Mar Mateos4
Accepted: 16 May 2022 / Published online: 12 June 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022
Abstract
In writing argumentative syntheses from multiple and contradictory sources, stu-
dents must contrast and integrate different perspectives on a topic or issue. This com-
plex task of source-based argumentation has been shown to be effective for learning,
but it has also been shown to be quite challenging. Because of the challenges, edu-
cational interventions have been developed to facilitate performance through such
means as explicit instruction of strategies and students’ engagement in collaborative
writing. Whereas these interventions have been beneficial for many writers, some
students continue to perform poorly. The present study builds on prior research into
collaborative writing of source-based argumentative syntheses by focusing on these
students who experience difficulty with this academic task. Undergraduate psychol-
ogy students who had previously underperformed on the argumentative task were
organized into 56 pairs to participate in one of four versions of an intervention pro-
gram, which differed in terms of the extent of support provided. The most complete
program included collaboration as well as explicit instruction in argumentative syn-
thesis writing and in the collaboration process. Statistical analyses were carried out
with two ANOVAs with planned comparisons as well as two mediation models.
Results showed that the pairs of students who received this most complete program
significantly improved the quality of their synthesis in two dimensions, argument
identification and argument analysis. The quality of their performance exceeded the
performance of students in the three other intervention programs. The combination
of explicit instruction and practice in pairs had positive effects on argument identifi-
cation; but, for argument integration, effectiveness could be attributed solely to the
explicit instruction component of the intervention. The study contributes to prior
research by showing how the components of an intervention can make differential
contributions to its effectiveness for a particular group of students.
Keywords Argumentative synthesis · Collaborative writing · Higher education ·

Low performing · Explicit instruction
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
910 M. Granado‑Peinado et al.
Argumentation, considered essential for effective participation in twenty-first cen-

tury democratic societies (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016), refers to an interpersonal or
intrapersonal process in which claims are made, supported, and evaluated by reasons
and evidence (Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011). University students are expected to be
able to argue rationally and critically (Andrews, 2010; Voss & Van Dicke, 2001).
When writing requires argumentation, students are encouraged to accept the exist-
ence of different points of view in order to integrate the arguments and counterargu-
ments of opposing positions (Kuhn, 2005; Leitão, 2003). Thus, when argumenta-
tive writing is based on multiple and contradictory sources, students must organise,
select, and connect information from these sources (Spivey, 1997), a task that is
often quite challenging but has been shown to be effective for learning (Nussbaum,
2020). This is because, during argumentation, new knowledge can result through
conceptual change and the need for increased specificity (Baker, 2004, 2016).
This study is part of a line of research aimed at improving undergraduate stu-
dents’ argumentative synthesis writing from multiple contradictory source texts.
As with our previous related inquiries (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019; Mateos et al.,
2018, 2020), the present intervention employed explicit instruction in argumenta-
tion and collaboration as well as practice in pairs to facilitate students’ performance.
Particular foci were students’ identification and interrelation of contrasting claims,
or arguments, made by source texts. The most noteworthy findings highlighted that,
in order to achieve this, it was not enough to explicitly teach writing strategies, but
it was also necessary to explicitly teach students to collaborate. In the following, we
first provide theoretical and empirical background for the present study, which was
conducted with a specific subset of university students. We then describe the design,
which involved four versions of the program characterized by progressive reduction
of support. In this way, we could analyze facets of the intervention separately as well
as in combination. We report results and then conclude by discussing the study and
its contributions with respect to theoretical considerations and previous empirical
work.
The construction of argumentative syntheses from multiple texts
Argumentation has been approached and defined from different disciplines, but the
dominant theoretical framework has been based on the model developed by Stephen
Toulmin. Important here is Toulmin’s (1958) model of persuasive argumentation,
which identified elements of an argumentative text and the ways in which argumen-
tative claims are supported. Another important theory of argument, called “new
rhetoric,” was developed by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969), who considered,
in great detail, the means that speakers or writers use to obtain “adherence” of an
audience. Furthermore, the pragma-dialectical theory of Van Eemeren and Grooten-
dorst (1992), which is a consensual conception, portrays the aim of argumentation
as the resolution of differences of opinion held by speaker (or writer) and listener (or
reader).
These diverse definitions of argumentation converge in the way they conceive the
pragmatic criterion of goals: they assume that argumentation is a verbal activity for
13
Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by… 911
which the aim is to generate a change of attitude in the addressee with respect to
a viewpoint. It is here that some theories of argumentation explicitly or implicitly
encounter the issue of persuading others of one’s position. However, not every argu-
mentative activity has a persuasive aim. Thus, Nussbaum (2008a) distinguished two
goals when elaborating argumentative texts: a persuasive goal, or a reflective goal.
Reflective writing focuses on “exploring and integrating various sides of an issue in
order to reach a reasoned conclusion” (p. 551).1
Argument-counterargument integration is a complex process since individuals
tend to reason in biased ways, specifically by searching for evidence that supports
their prior beliefs and by ignoring counterevidence (Nickerson, 1998; Villarroel
et al., 2016). According to Nussbaum and Schraw (2007), “effective argumentation
involves not only considering counterarguments but also evaluating, weighing, and
combining the arguments and counterarguments into support for an overall final
position” (p. 60). There are several strategies to achieve argument-counterargu-
ment integration. These authors identified as a ‘weighing’ strategy when the arguer
considers both sides of a controversial issue, weighs the advantages and disadvan-
tages and ends up supporting the position with stronger arguments. Another strat-
egy defined by these authors is the ‘synthesis’ strategy, which consists of finding
a creative solution, or a compromise solution, that brings together the best of the
two opposing points of view. The third and final strategy for argument-counterargu-
ment integration, identified by these authors, is a ‘refutation’ strategy. Through the
refutation strategy, the individual tries to show that some arguments related to the
topic are false, irrelevant, or insufficiently supported. When the goal of argumenta-
tion is persuasion, refuting the arguments of the opposing position is considered an
appropriate strategy. However, if the purpose is to explore different perspectives on
a topic, reconcile positions and reach a collaborative, reasoned and informed conclu-
sion, although refutation can be employed selectively, it may be more appropriate to
use weighing and synthesising strategies.
Considering this background, this study focuses on argumentative writing in
order to investigate different perspectives on a controversial topic and reach an inte-
grative conclusion by making use of the three strategies considered above: weigh-
ing, synthesising, and refutation. Given that the different perspectives are presented
to the student through the reading of two source texts that defend different or con-
tradictory positions, the writing of an argumentative text with these characteristics
could be understood as a task that involves the synthesis of different sources.
Writing a synthesis from multiple sources is a task that requires organizing,
selecting, and connecting information from more than one text (Nelson & King,
2022; Spivey, 1997). This involves the ability to connect information within each
text (intratextual integration), as well as connecting ideas from different texts
1
It should be noted that Nussbaum (2008a) differs from some other theorists, including Toulmin (1958),
with respect to terminology. In much rhetorical theory of argumentation, the term argument refers to
the argumentative text itself (spoken or written) and the terms claims, and counterclaims refer to ele-
ments within it. But, for Nussbaum, the terms arguments and counterarguments refer to elements within
an argumentative text. We adopt Nussbaum’s terminology.
13
(intertextual integration) (Segev-Miller, 2007). These sources may offer comple-

mentary or contradictory information, which the learner has to contrast and, ideally,
integrate. When sources offer conflicting positions on a controversial issue, and the
task requires arguing a conclusion, students not only have to identify and contrast
them but are encouraged to integrate them, which could promote more constructive
learning (Mateos et al., 2011, 2018; Wiley et al., 2014).
In addition, as studies such as that of Wiley et al. (2014) showed, the goal or
purpose of synthesising multiple texts that present conflicting information on a topic
influences the way in which these sources are integrated. Their results suggested that
a position-based writing prompt (asking writers to take a position and support it)
could lead students to take a perspective early on and to attend only to information
that supported it. By contrast, when given a contributing-factors writing prompt,
requiring them to construct an explanation, they considered the information pro-
vided by the different documents, favouring the inclusion of more varied perspec-
tives than a position-based question.
The interest of our line of research has focused on synthesis writing tasks that
require arguing from multiple texts that present conflicting positions on an issue
with a reflective or deliberative, rather than a persuasive, goal. This type of task is
necessary when students are faced with academic and/or scientific work, which is
closely linked to the university context. These tasks require students to read a vari-
ety of documents that often present opposing evidence. The ability to identify argu-
ments in one or several texts, to evaluate the relevance or quality of the reasons that
support them, and to contrast and integrate them is a challenge of academic literacy
(Britt et al., 2014).
A review by Barzilai et al. (2018) revealed the problems associated with the inte-
gration of information from different sources. Among the difficulties, reading and
contrasting information from more than one text could increase the complexity of
the task. When a synthesis is written from multiple sources it is necessary to make
decisions about the structure in order to integrate the information from the different
texts, unlike writing a summary where the same pattern used in the original text can
be repeated (Mateos & Solé, 2009). In addition, when sources present conflicting
and contradictory information on a topic, the understanding of the texts can also be
affected, since students usually have difficulties including in their texts references
to the arguments that defend positions contrary to their own, tending to ignore or
exclude evidence against their own position. This is what has been termed in the lit-
erature as ‘my side bias’ (Wolf et al., 2009). This tendency, which has been shown in
research into the writing of argumentative texts, (Kuhn, 1991; Nussbaum & Schraw,
2007; Schwarz, 2009) is also reflected in the writing of argumentative syntheses
from sources that present contradictory positions on a topic (Cuevas et al., 2016;
Mateos et al., 2018). In this way, students often ignore relevant information that is
inconsistent with their own perspective and that supports another point of view. As
a result students develop little argumentation and are insensitive to alternative per-
spectives (Song & Ferretti, 2013).
All the recurrent problems mentioned above illustrate a low-performing
writer profile that is frequent among university students who could greatly ben-
efit from the aid offered. Among all the difficulties the one that is particularly
13
interesting to teach in this study is that of integrating information from multiple

contradictory sources. Although college students are expected to develop pro-
ficiency in communication, including the ability to write at an appropriate aca-
demic level, and to create well-structured arguments, research indicates that they
are not adequately prepared (Butler & Britt, 2011).
To the best of our knowledge there are no previous studies that have examined
the differences between university students with different levels of performance
in argumentative synthesis-writing tasks from multiple texts. Nor are there any
studies regarding the differential impact of interventions for the improvement of
argumentative synthesis writing depending on the skills of the university writer.
Nevertheless, there is some prior research that shows some differences in writ-
ing in general and in writing persuasive essays among students with different
levels of proficiency. Several studies, based on classical models defining the dif-
ferent strategies used by expert and novice writers, suggest that expert writers
or high-achieving university students employed strategies for planning, setting
goals, monitoring, textualizing and revising more frequently and thoroughly
than novices or low achievers (Chien, 2012; Rahmawati et al, 2019; Rijlaarsdam
et al., 2012). In the context of persuasive essay writing, Perin et al. (2017) found
low levels of literacy skills in a sample of pre-university students. These authors
suggest that an improvement in general reading skills may promote a better text-
based summary, while improvement in general writing skills can be key to bet-
ter persuasive essay-writing ability. Although research in primary and secondary
education has found that intervention to improve writing is not equally effective
for all types of writers, suggesting that those with lower skills may benefit more
than those more skilled (see Rijlaarsdam et al., 2012), the literature in higher
education is scarce. Since most of the studies reviewed do not take into account
how expert writers differ from novice writers, differences in writing processes
between these groups may determine many of the results found. Van den Bergh
et al. (2015) suggested that to avoid this fallacy, only one group should be con-
sidered. Thus, more research is needed to support low achieving writers.
Therefore, in response to the need to help university students deal with such
tasks, interventions have been developed to teach the processes of identifying,
contrasting, and integrating arguments and counterarguments from sources that
present opposing positions on a controversial topic.
Previous intervention studies on argumentative synthesis tasks

with university students
Previous research has shown that both explicit instruction on strategies and col-
laborative writing tasks were effective in improving argumentative synthesis
writing. The following are the studies that, from these two fields, have supported
our subsequent research.
13
Explicit instruction on writing strategies
Instructional strategies aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing have been

influenced by instructional research related to argumentative writing as well as inter-
ventions into synthesis from multiple sources. In the former, from a cognitive approach
this task is viewed as a problem-solving process in which students learn to write an
argument through processes of self-regulation and/or explicit instruction. Authors such
as Ferretti and Lewis (2013), stated that the key is to use explicit instruction, along
with discussion, modelling and practice, to scaffold the process of acquiring and apply-
ing writing strategies, especially for struggling writers. Some research has emphasized
self-regulation strategies. In this context, Song and Ferretti (2013) carried out a study to
analyse the effect of instruction in self-regulation strategies in the use of critical ques-
tions and argumentation schemes. The latter are defined by the authors as “convention-
alised ways of representing the relationship between what is asserted in the viewpoint
and its supporting justificatory structure” (p. 69). They concluded that teaching stu-
dents to answer critical questions about argumentation schemes was necessary for them
to consider perspectives contrary to their own and to include more counterarguments
and rebuttals in their writing.
Teaching self-regulation strategies has not been the only tool that has proven use-
ful in improving argumentative writing. Argumentation schemas (Wolf et al., 2009)
is a way of organising knowledge that helps in argumentative writing by answering
questions evoked by source texts. It have been used to help students graphically repre-
sent arguments, reasons, and counterarguments, facilitating the refutation of points of
view opposed to their own and consequently improving the quality of their writing. In
the same vein, Butler and Britt (2011) designed instruction to scaffold the revision of
argumentative essays. These authors found that argument schemas, which encouraged
students to not necessarily accept a single position, and which demonstrated the impor-
tance of including counterarguments and refutations, could help them to make changes
at a higher level by including more argumentative content and consequently improving
their essay structure.
In a review study in the field of learning to write source-based synthesis texts, Van
Ockenburg et al. (2019) stated that in order to acquire synthesizing skills it was neces-
sary to involve students in a set of learning activities that promote all three transforma-
tional processes: selecting information from sources, organizing, and connecting that
information. Indeed, this third process of connecting information between texts, known
as intertextual integration, is an important aspect of synthesis writing. In this regard, a
review by Barzilai et al. (2018) revealed that the most frequent instructional strategies
and practices were to engage students in collaborative discussions and practices, facili-
tate explicit instruction on integration, provide guidelines for the integration process,
manage graphic organizers, model the integration process, provide individual practice,
and give feedback to students.
13
Collaborative writing
Among the instructional components and strategies that have been mentioned, col-
laboration is of special interest in this work, since it could contribute to the improve-
ment of writing, in the framework of socially-regulated learning, by combining
these two constructs: the construction of shared meanings and co-regulation (Volet
et al., 2009). This is because during collaborative writing a series of exchanges takes
place that facilitates the elaboration of thought, the relation of information with
prior knowledge, and/or the understanding of the content (Nykopp et al., 2014). It is
common that during this negotiation process, previous representations and ideas are
made explicit, contrasted, and modified (Coll & Onrubia, 2001). This can promote
a deeper understanding of content and constructive learning due to the inherently
dialogical nature of argumentation (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013; Nussbaum, 2008b).
Although discussions and collaborative practices may be positive for dealing with
this task, it should not be assumed that students already have the skills to work
effectively with others (Thomas, 2014).
Dillenbourg (2002) stated that it is important to teach students how to work
together. This instruction can be directed to structuring the collaborative process
and to regulating interactions, which includes dealing with problems that may arise.
To achieve this, explanations or scripts that provide instructions on how to inter-
act and solve problems can be administered (Scheuer et al., 2014). Representations
of the process can also be provided to students through modelling or observational
learning (Dale, 1994). A relevant study by Scheuer et al. (2014) incorporated a tool
that helped regulate collaborative strategies (collaboration scripts) together with
another aimed at supporting argumentative writing (argumentation diagramming).
The results showed that combining task-focused and collaboration-focused aids was
more effective than using argumentation diagrams exclusively. Although offering
collaborative aids can be beneficial to the writing process, Kimmerle et al. (2017)
pointed out that each specific collaborative stage of the writing process (i.e., knowl-
edge introduction, information restructuring, and shared opinion), could require spe-
cific support.
Previous studies within our line of research
In line with the previous research reviewed, a study by Mateos et al. (2018) designed
two intervention programmes to improve the teaching of argumentative syntheses
from contradictory sources. The quality of the argumentative syntheses was meas-
ured using two variables: the coverage of arguments from different sources and the
level of integration of the information. The first intervention included collaborative
practice in pairs with the support of a guide (CPG) that intended to lead the stu-
dents towards writing an argumentative synthesis. The second condition (CPG + EI)
also added the explicit instruction and modelling in the strategies used in writing an
argumentative synthesis text. Only those students who received additional explicit
instruction improved their ability to integrate conflicting information and increased
13
the number of arguments they selected from the sources. These findings suggested
that explicit instruction was the key to improving argumentative synthesis writing;
however it was shown that the learning path was not the same for the different pro-
cesses involved in the task: argument identification and integration level of argu-
ments and counterarguments (Mateos et al., 2020). This study showed that in the
case of argument identification, the practice in pairs sessions provided an additional
learning pathway that positively affected the results from the preceding explicit
instruction. That is, explicit instruction showed an indirect effect through practice in
pairs to improve argument identification. By contrast, for the other learning outcome
(i.e., integrating arguments from various sources), a direct effect of explicit instruc-
tion was found, indicating that practice in pairs did not contribute to the final scores.
In these previous studies, one issue that has remained unresolved is that stu-
dents’ difficulties with the integration task might partly be due to the difficulties they
encounter in collaborative writing. This is why we saw a need to analyze the specific
role of explicit instruction through explanations and modelling in collaborative pro-
cesses during synthesis writing was relevant. For this purpose, we conducted a new
study (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019) to analyse differential effects of support for
collaboration and support for writing argumentative syntheses when the two were
combined. The results showed that the most effective way to teach how to write col-
laborative argumentative syntheses from multiple and contradictory sources required
explicit instruction. When explicit instruction was designed to improve both the
writing process and collaboration, students achieved higher levels of integration.
However, to identify a larger number of arguments from the source texts, explicit
instruction that focuses solely on helping students to write argumentative syntheses
has proved to be as effective as help directed at collaboration. This work showed that
collaboration can contribute to improving the quality of synthesis writing as long as
there is an instruction that models and unravels the processes that underlie it. How-
ever, this study raised questions that we intend to answer in the current study.
The present study
Our previous results were obtained from a study comprising a heterogeneous sample
of students, who started from different levels of initial expertise in writing collabora-
tive argumentative synthesis. Since the students were not selected based on their ini-
tial proficiency level, the final sample did not enable the distribution of the students
into two homogeneous groups of either high or low level students. Therefore, in this
study we have analysed the differential effect of combining explicit instruction in
both writing and collaborative processes when all pairs started from a low level of
initial proficiency in the construction of argumentative syntheses. On the other hand
and based on the evidence found that there are two different learning paths for the
two elements of argumentative synthesis writing: argument identification and inte-
gration level of arguments and counterarguments (Mateos et al., 2020). In this cur-
rent study we wanted to corroborate whether there could also be any direct and/or
indirect effects of explicit instruction (mediated through practice in pairs) during the
construction of argumentative synthesis written in collaboration. For this purpose,
13
it was necessary to additionally analyse intermediate syntheses written during the

practice in pairs sessions.
Therefore, in this context, the following question arises: What will be the effect
of explicit instruction and collaboration practice on the quality of the syntheses writ-
ten collaboratively by pairs of students who start from a low level of expertise (i.e.,
previous writing of non-integrative syntheses that argued from a single position and
ignored a contradictory position)? Explicit instruction included instruction in syn-
thesis writing and in the collaboration process. Furthermore, and since it was not
considered in the previous study (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019), it would also be
interesting to answer the question: Is the effect of the explicit instruction mediated
by the practice in pairs?
To answer these questions, we sought to analyze the following:
1. The differential impact of an intervention programme which combined explicit

instruction with video-modelling of the writing and collaboration processes
together with a guide and collaborative practice in pairs (CPG + EICS2), when
compared with three other programmes: (1) Collaborative practice in pairs
with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about writing synthesis
(CPG + EIS3); (2) Collaborative practice in pairs with a written guide (CPG4);
and (3) Collaborative practice in pairs (CP5), when all pairs of students start from
a low initial proficiency level (non-integrative syntheses).
2. The extent to which the impact of the explicit instruction in each of the dimen-
sions of the product analysed, affects directly (based on the initial instruction
session) and/or indirectly (through the practice in pairs sessions) the quality of
the final collaborative syntheses (post-test).
In keeping with these objectives, this study addressed the following hypotheses.
As in the related previous study (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019), we expected that:
1.1 After intervention, the pairs that received explicit instruction, the support of a
guide and practice in pairs (CPG + EICS and CPG + EIS) would write better qual-
ity syntheses in terms of argument identification than those completing the other
programmes (CPG and CP).
1.2 Regarding the level of integration, the pairs of students that received explicit
instruction on both writing and collaborative processes, the support of a guide and
practice in pairs (CPG + EICS) would write better quality syntheses than those
completing the other three programmes (CPG + EIS, CPG and CP).
2
Collaborative practice in pairs with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about collabora-
tive writing synthesis.
3
Collaborative practice in pairs with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about writing syn-
thesis.
4
Collaborative practice in pairs with a written guide.
5
Collaborative practice in pairs.
13
Additionally, in line with previous study (Mateos et al., 2020), we expected

that:
2.1 There will be a direct and an indirect effect of explicit instruction via the prac-
tice in pairs on the quality of final collaborative synthesis, in terms of argument
identification.
2.2 By contrast, in relation to the level of integration, there will only be a direct effect
of explicit instruction on the quality of final collaborative synthesis.
Method
Participants
Participants were 112 third-year psychology students comprising (13,6% male

and 86,4% female) who were randomly assigned into 56 pairs that were main-
tained during the four sessions of the programme. This sample was selected
from 160 students who voluntarily signed up to participate in this research,
which was part of a writing workshop and for which they would receive some
academic credit. Those who did not participate in this activity could earn the
credits through other assignments set by the teachers of the different subjects.
The criterion for inclusion in this sample was to present low levels of argu-
ment integration. The students were encouraged to carry out a first collaborative
synthesis (pre-test) where a mean of 2.39 points (SD = 0.87) out of a maximum
of 6 points was obtained. Therefore, the mean level of argumentative integration
was low although some pairs of students did produce integrative syntheses, scor-
ing a maximum of 5 in our coding system.
For this reason in order to achieve a homogeneous sample, and to be able
to verify whether the designed intervention was beneficial only for low profi-
ciency pairs of students, we only selected those pairs who failed to overcome the
my side bias effect. That is, someone who defends a position with reasons and
arguments from only one source text, tending to ignore evidence against their
own position (Wolf et al., 2009). Thus, this final sample of 56 pairs of students,
which represented 69% of the potential participants at baseline, showed a low
initial proficiency to write a collaborative argumentative synthesis.
All the pairs of students were randomly distributed into the four interven-
tion programmes, depending on the aid offered, as mentioned above but repeated
here: collaborative practice in pairs with a written guide supported by explicit
instruction about collaborative writing synthesis (CPG + EICS); collaborative
practice in pairs with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about
writing synthesis (CPG + EIS); collaborative practice in pairs with a written
guide (CPG); and collaborative practice in pairs (CP). The final distribution of
the four intervention programmes is shown in Table 1.
13
Table 1 Distribution of the 112 students in the four intervention programmes

Total Frequency Total Percent Frequency by gender Percent by gender
students (dyads)
Male Female Male Female
CPG + EICS 30 (15) 26,78% 5 27 15,6% 84,4%

CPG + EIS 28 (14) 25,00% 5 17 22,7% 77,3%
CPG 22 (11) 19,65% 1 25 3,8% 96,2%
CP 32 (16) 28,57% 4 26 13,3% 86,7%
Total 112 (56) 100% 15 95 13,6% 86,4%
Instruments and material
Intervention programmes
Four intervention programmes were designed with the same objective of improv-
ing the quality of argumentative syntheses of pairs of students. Each programme
included different components (CPG + EICS; CPG + EIS; CPG; and CP), as men-
tioned above. The components are briefly detailed below (for more details, see
Granado-Peinado, 2019).
Explicit instruction with video‑modelling
In the programmes that included explicit instruction (CPG + EICS and

CPG + EIS), one of the researchers explained the activities and processes
involved in the synthesis writing task, emphasising the acquisition of knowledge
by integrating information from different perspectives. These processes, which
were instructed with an emphasis on their recursivity, concerned: (1) Reading
source texts; (2) Identifying arguments from each position on the topic; (3) Con-
trasting arguments from both positions; (4) Developing an integrative conclusion
that considers both positions; (5) Organising ideas to transfer to the written text;
and (6) Revising the written text. This instruction was accompanied by a video
modelling in which a pair of students performed the synthesis-writing task with a
high level of proficiency.
In addition, the instruction for CPG + EICS participants also included the poten-
tial benefits of collaboration. To this end, the researcher explained different strat-
egies for: (1) Constructively resolving controversies arising from the topic of dis-
cussion; (2) Actively listening to each other; (3) Adopt each other’s point of view,
without imposing one’s own, and being open to change one’s opinion if necessary;
(4) Mutually regulate both the processes of the writing task and the roles one might
adopt. In this case, the video accompanying the instruction on effective collabora-
tion showed how a pair of students, while producing a written synthesis, collabo-
rated effectively and put the instructed strategies into action. Thus, the video model
also showed examples of strategies that could help a difficult collaboration.
13
Guide
A guide adapted from previous studies by Mateos et al. (2018) was given to the partici-
pants in the CPG + EICS, CPG + EIS and CPG programmes (see online Appendix 1).
This guide, with a graphic format, comprised a table to identify and interrelate the
arguments in both positions. In addition, it included three blocks of questions to guide
the reflection of the pairs of students towards the writing of an integrative conclusion,
the organising and textualizing ideas and revising the final text. In the case of the most
complete programme (CPG + EICS), the guide also included a list of suggestions on
how to work constructively as a pair and regulate their interactions.
Collaborative practice in pairs
All the pairs of students participated in two practice in pairs sessions, writing an argu-
mentative synthesis in pairs in each of these sessions.
Texts for collaborative writing synthesis tasks
We construct four pairs of argumentative source texts, one for each session of the pro-
gramme. The texts were created by the researchers using topical issues in the field of
educational psychology, a subject that all students had taken. This ensured that the
content was comprehensible to all and ensured that, for design purposes, all texts con-
tained the same parameters, controlling for structure, number of arguments, length, and
reliability.
All the pairs of students in the four intervention conditions received the same texts.
The four pairs of texts provided conflicting information on a controversial topic in edu-
cation, representing one position for, and one position against, the debate in question:
(1) School Day; (2) Teacher Evaluation; (3) External Student Evaluations; (4) System
of Access to the Teaching Profession. As an example, in the first of the topics, the
source advocating divided time for school states that it is necessary for children to have
enough time in the middle of their day to rest, regain their attention, and develop infor-
mal learning. By contrast, the source advocating continuous time states that it is neces-
sary to have afternoons free for homework and other leisure activities. A table with the
arguments on this topic (school day) is included in online Appendix 2.
All texts were written in Spanish and had a similar argumentative structure, with an
equivalent number of arguments and counter-arguments (between 8 and 9), a length
ranging from 609 to 867 words, and good readability (Szigriszt-Pazos (2001) index
between a 44.5–55.5, range which is suitable for high school and university students).
Procedure
Design and implementation
This study involved a total of four 90-min sessions per week for four consecutive
weeks. The same researcher conducted all the sessions. In all four sessions, each
13
time the pairs of students were asked to write a collaborative argumentative syn-
thesis, the instruction was the same: “You are going to read two texts on a con-
troversial topic in the field of education that present different positions. When you
have finished you have to write a conclusion arguing from what you have read
and from your own ideas on the topic”.
The first session focused on assessing the pairs of students’ initial skills in
preparing collaborative syntheses before participating in the intervention (prior
collaborative synthesis). As mentioned above, from the total number of students
who initially participated in the research, only those pairs who in this first session
showed a low initial proficiency to write a collaborative argumentative synthesis
were selected.
After the initial assessment, the second session was aimed at receiving the
intervention according to the programme to which they had been assigned. To
summarise, the CPG + EICS and CPG + EIS programmes received explicit
instruction with video modelling accompanied by a guide aimed at improving the
quality of the syntheses. The difference between these two programmes was that
the former also included instruction on how to collaborate effectively. By con-
trast, the students in the CPG programme only received the guide in this session,
without any instruction about its purpose or how to use it. Finally, those in the
CP programme received no instruction or support material. The pairs of students
assigned to the programme that did not include any explicit instruction (CPG
and CP) were asked to complete a reading comprehension task to ensure that the
instruction time was the same across the four programmes. Subsequently, after
receiving the explicit instruction or reading comprehension activity, the pairs of
students in all programmes completed a collaborative synthesis task (first inter-
mediate collaborative synthesis) using the help obtained in each programme.
In the third session, the pairs carried out a new collaborative synthesis writing
task with the aids received in each programme (second intermediate collabora-
tive synthesis).
Finally, in the fourth session, the pairs of students wrote the final collabora-
tive synthesis (final collaborative synthesis), in this case without using the aids
offered.
Treatment fidelity
In order to ensure the fidelity of the implementation of the intervention for all the
pairs of students, a script was prepared with the content to be covered in each inter-
vention programme. This script was used by the researcher in charge of each ses-
sion, thus ensuring that the same order was followed in the explanation of each
component. The participants were not allowed to intervene during the intervention
session to ensure that the information conveyed by the researcher was the same in
all four-intervention programmes. Also, to ensure that the syntheses produced were
completed as instructed the participants were required to hand them in before leav-
ing the classroom, and to sign an attendance sheet. On average, the syntheses pro-
duced included a mean of 429 words (SD = 83.54).
13
Coding system
Two independent judges evaluated 28,57% of the syntheses out of a total of 224. In
cases where there was no consensus, the judges discussed the presence of different
argumentative strategies and agreed on the most appropriate score for the synthesis.
Inter-judge agreement was calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
(ICC). In particular, we used a Two-Way Mixed-Effect Model absolute agreement
for the mean of the two raters (Koo & Li, 2016). In addition, Cronbach’s Alpha coef-
ficient for consistency was also calculated. A good degree of reliability was achieved
for the two dimensions. For the proportion of identified arguments an ICC = 0.890,
CI 95% [0.818–0.933] and Alpha = 0.888 were found. For the level of integration an
ICC = 0.831, CI 95% [0.721–0.898] and Alpha = 0.835 were found. Once consensus
was reached, one of the researchers evaluated the remaining syntheses following the
criteria established after inter-judge agreement.
The quality of the four collaborative argumentative syntheses was assessed in
two dimensions: argument identification (the proportion of arguments identified in
the source texts) and integration level (using a coding system developed by Mateos
et al., 2018). The scale for the latter ranged from 0 to 6 points (see Table 2).
On this scale, a score between 0 and 2 indicated that the pair of students did
not relate the two positions in the debate indicating that integration had not been
achieved, while scores above 2 showed different levels of integration: A score of 3
implied integration of arguments and counter-arguments through a refutation strat-
egy, taking a single position. Scores 4 to 6 implied the use of weighing and synthe-
sising strategies, representing a text with a higher level of integration. Therefore, the
students were able to produce syntheses defending only one position (0–2) or includ-
ing arguments and counter-arguments from the two source texts (3–6). A description
of the categories of analysis of the level of integration and examples of the strategies
employed by the pairs of students are shown in online Appendix 3.
Data analysis
Although the final sample was composed of 112 students, in 56 pairs, the unit of
observation was each pair score because the written synthesis was unique for each
pair. In the following analysis, a sample size of 56 cases (pairs) was then used.
Firstly, to analyse the effect of the programmes on the quality of the argumenta-
tive syntheses written in collaboration, two ANOVA models were conducted (one
for each dependent variable): the four sessions form the within-subject factor and
the programme form the between-subject factor. To test the hypotheses formu-
lated previously (see 1.1. and 1.2 hypotheses) two planned comparisons were car-
ried out: firstly, we compared the population means between the programmes that
included explicit instruction (CPG + EICS and CPG + EIS) vs. programmes that
did not include it. The second comparison was made between the population means
of CPG + EICS (i.e. the programme including explicit instruction on both writing
and collaborative processes) vs. CPG + EIS (i.e. the programme including explicit
instruction only for the writing processes). For the planned comparison we used
one-tailed tests. Secondly, to test the 2.1 and 2.2 hypotheses, we analysed whether
13
Table 2 Levels of the coding system for the quality of argumentative synthesis regarding the level of integration. Adapted from Mateos et al. (2018)
Score Overall argumentative strategy Definition
0 Personal opinion A personal opinion not based on the source texts

1 Neutral A neutral conclusion
2 Argues in support A conclusion in favour of one position
3 Integration via refutation Takes a position in support one of the two perspectives and refuting the opposing perspective
4 Minimum integration via weighing or synthesizing Takes a position in support of one or both perspectives and argues by weighing or synthesizing argu-
Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by…
ments from both positions

Include (a) two integrations only throughout the text or (b) one integration throughout the text and
another in the conclusion or (c) two integrations, both in the conclusion
5 Average integration via weighing or synthesizing Takes a position in support of one or both perspectives and argues by weighing or synthesizing argu-
Include (a) two integrations throughout the text and one integration in the conclusion or (b) three or more
integrations only throughout the text
6 Maximum integration Takes a position in support of one or both perspectives and argues by weighing or synthesizing argu-
Include at least two integrations throughout the text and in the conclusion weighs or synthesizes more
than two arguments from each side
923
13
Table 3 Sample size, mean proportion and standard deviation of “arguments identification” in the four
collaborative syntheses, based on the four-intervention programme
Prior collabora- First intermedi- Second Intermedi- Final collabo-
tive synthesis ate Collaborative ate Collaborative rative synthesis
synthesis Synthesis
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
CPG + EICS 15 .56 0.099 0.82 0.114 0.84 0.167 0.73 0.077
CPG + EIS 14 .53 0.051 0.77 0.179 0.75 0.115 0.68 0.235
CPG 11 .50 0.205 0.67 0.096 0.70 0.134 0.59 0.130
PC 16 .56 0.076 0.64 0.091 0.69 0.142 0.56 0.162
Total 56 .54 0.123 0.73 0.139 0.75 0.153 0.64 0.166
CPG + EICS Collaborative practice with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about collab-
orative writing synthesis; CPG + EIS Collaborative practice with a written guide supported by explicit
instruction about writing synthesis; CPG Collaborative practice with a written guide; CP Collaborative
practice
the effect of the programme on the quality of the argumentative syntheses could be
mediated by the practice in pairs, or if in the absence of any direct effects, indirect
effects emerged, two mediation analyses were carried out, one for each dependent
variable (i.e. argument identification and level of integration).
The Mplus v7.0 structural equation modelling software was used with a boot-
strapping estimation method (10,000 bootstrap samples). In addition, to perform
both mediation models the programme (independent variable) was treated as ordi-
nal variable (coded as CP = 0, CPG = 1, CPG + EIS = 2, and CPG + EICS = 3). This
was because the four instructions examined included components in a hierarchical/
cumulative way (CP < CPG < CPG + EIS < CPG + EICS). This assumption was sup-
ported empirically (see below Tables 3 and 4, and Figs. 1 and 2) as the quality of the
written syntheses increased according to the complexity of the instruction.
Results
Analysis of the impact of the programmes on the quality of the collaborative

synthesis (argument identification and level of integration) generated
after the intervention
Argument identification
A first ANOVA was carried out with the programme as the between-subject fac-
tor (four programmes) and session as the within-subject factor (four moments). The
results showed a main effect of the intervention programme factor (F(3,52) = 6.433;
MSe = 0.216; p = 0.001; η2 = 0.271), a main effect of the within-subject factor (ses-
sion) (F(3,156) = 35.889; MSe = 0.483; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.408), and a marginal inter-
action effect (F(9,156) = 1.681; MSe = 0.023; p = 0.098; η2 = 0.088). The means and
standard deviations for the variable ‘argument identification‘ are shown in Table 3.
13
Table 4 Means and standard deviation of “level of integration“ in the four collaborative syntheses, based
on the four-intervention programme
Prior collaborative First intermedi- Second intermedi- Final collabora-
synthesis ate Collaborative ate Collaborative tive Synthesis
synthesis synthesis
N M SD M SD M SD M SD
CPG + EICS 15 2.00 0.000 4.19 1.642 4.56 1.413 3.56 1.590
CPG + EIS 14 2.00 0.000 3.82 1.834 3.36 1.912 3.36 2.111
CPG 11 2.00 0.000 2.50 0.941 2.64 1.082 2.29 0.914
PC 16 2.00 0.000 1.93 0.704 3.00 1.363 2.00 0.655
Total 56 2.00 0.000 3.09 1.610 3.43 1.594 2.79 1.510
CPG + EICS Collaborative practice with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about collab-
orative writing synthesis; CPG + EIS Collaborative practice with a written guide supported by explicit
instruction about writing synthesis; CPG Collaborative practice with a written guide; CP Collaborative
practice
Fig. 1 Means and error bars (CI 95%) for “arguments identification” in the four collaborative synthe-
ses, based on the four-intervention programme. Note: CPG + EICS: Collaborative practice with a written
guide supported by explicit instruction about collaborative writing synthesis; CPG + EIS: Collaborative
practice with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about writing synthesis; CPG: Collabora-
tive practice with a written guide; CP: Collaborative practice
Figure 1 shows the means and error bars (CI 95%) for the argument identification.
This figure shows how the change in argument identification means is not the same
for the four programmes, (i.e., the marginal interaction effect). A more pronounced
increase in the integration levels can be seen with the CPG + EICS and CPG + EIS
programmes than with the other two programmes from prior collaborative to first
intermediate collaborative moments. The first planned comparison considers the
CPG + EIS and CPG + EICS programmes together vs CPG and CP together. Sig-
nificant mean differences were found between the two groups (the difference was
0.098 points higher for the explicit instruction groups, se = 0.025, p < 0.001). The
13
Fig. 2 Means and error bars (CI 95%) for “level of integration“ in the four collaborative syntheses, based
on the four-intervention programme. Note: CPG + EICS: Collaborative practice with a written guide sup-
ported by explicit instruction about collaborative writing synthesis; CPG + EIS: Collaborative practice
with a written guide supported by explicit instruction about writing synthesis; CPG: Collaborative prac-
tice with a written guide; CP: Collaborative practice
second planned comparison analyzed whether there were any significant differences
between the CPG + EICS vs CPG + EIS groups. The difference was marginal with
0.052 points greater for the CPG + EICS than for the CPG + EIS group (se = 0.036,
p = 0.075). Non-significant differences were found in the means of the CPG and CP
groups (0.004, se = 0.034, p = 0.451).
Level of integration
In this case, because of the pairs of students were selected with the same prior level
of integration (‘argues in support’, level 2), the ANOVA model has only a descrip-
tive value. The results showed a main effect of the intervention programme factor
(F(3,52) = 17.033; MSe = 24.61; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.496), a main effect of the session
factor (F(2,121) = 13.786; MSe = 25.50; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.210), and an interaction
effect (F(7,121) = 2.61; MSe = 4.90; p = 0.014; η2 = 0.133). The descriptive data are
presented in Table 4 (Pearson correlations between level of integration variables and
argument identification variables can be seen in Table A1 in the online Appendix 4).
Figure 2 shows the means and error bars (CI 95%) for the level of integration for
all the programmes in all the study moments. Again, it was compared CPG + EIS and
CPG + EICS programmes together vs CPG and CP together (first planned compari-
son). The results showed significant mean differences between the two groups (the
difference was 1.06 points higher than for the explicit instruction groups, se = 0.162,
p < 0.001). In addition, the population means of the CPG + EICS and CPG + EIS
programmes were compared. Significant mean differences were found (the differ-
ence was 0.442 points higher for the CPG + EICS instruction group programme with
13
b12=0.243t
1st Intermediate 1st Intermediate

Collaborative Synthesis Collaborative Synthesis
(R2=.289) (R2=.192)
a1= 0.064** b23= 0.289*
Programme Final Collaborative

Synthesis
a3= 0.010 (0.050*) (R2=.434)
Fig. 3 Summary of the mediation analysis model when the dependent variable is “argument identifica-
tion“
respect to the CPG + EIS group, se = 0.235, p = 0.033). Non-significant differences

were found in the means of the CPG and CP groups (0.124, se = 0.223, p = 0.286).
In summary, these results show that the pairs of students in the explicit instruc-
tion programmes (CPG + EICS and CPG + EIS) significantly outperformed the
quality of the syntheses than the non-explicit programmes (CPG and CP). In addi-
tion, the most complete programme, which included the explicit instruction on both
writing and collaboration processes, the support of a guide, and practice in pairs
(CPG + EICS), improved the quality of the syntheses in the two dimensions of anal-
ysis to a greater extent than CPG + EIS (marginally in the case of the identification
dimension and significantly in the case of the integration dimension).
Mediation analysis to examine the effect of the intervention programmes

on the quality of collaborative argumentative synthesis through practice in pairs
With regard to the second objective, we carried out a mediation analysis with struc-
tural equation modelling using the Mplus 7.0 program, with 10,000 bootstrap sam-
ples (95% confidence interval). As explained in the data analysis, programme (the
independent variable) was treated as an ordinal variable (coded as CP = 0, CPG = 1,
CPG + EIS = 2, and CPG + EICS = 3).
Argument identification
See Fig. 3 for a depiction of the mediation analysis. The results indicated that there
was a direct effect of the programme on the 1st Intermediate Collaborative Synthesis
written during the practice in pairs (a1 = 0.064, se = 0.012, p < 0.001); a marginal
direct effect on 2nd (a2 = 0.036, se = 0.021, p = 0.081), but a non-significant direct
effect of the programme on the final collaborative synthesis (a3 = 0.010, se = 0.023,
p = 0.674). In addition, a total indirect effect of the programme on the final col-
laborative synthesis mediated by the first and second intermediate collaborative
13
b12=-0.123
1st Intermediate 2nd Intermediate
Collaborative Synthesis Collaborative Synthesis
(R2=.338) (R2=.176)
a1 = 0.796** b23 = -0.035
Programme Final Collaborative

Synthesis
t
a3=0.413 (0.153) (R2=.232)
Fig. 4 Summary of the mediation analysis model when the dependent variable is “level of integration“.
Note: Programme variable is coded as ordinal variable: 0 = Collaborative practice; 1 = Collabora-
tive practice with a written guide; 2 = Collaborative practice with a written guide supported by explicit
instruction about writing synthesis; 3 = Collaborative practice with a written guide supported by explicit
instruction about collaborative writing synthesis. The score in parentheses is the total indirect effect of
the program on the final collaborative synthesis.t Significance level of p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, and
*** p < .001
synthesis was found (total indirect effect = 0.050, se = 0.021, p = 0.014, CI 95%
[0.010–0.091]).6
In summary, the mediation analysis indicated that for argument identification, the
effect of the programme on the final collaborative synthesis is completely mediated
by the quality of synthesis written on practice in pairs sessions.
Level of integration
See Fig. 4 for a depiction of the mediation analysis. The results indicated that there
was a direct effect of the programme on the quality of both the first and second
intermediate syntheses (a1 = 0.796, se = 0.146, p < 0.001; a2 = 0.650, se = 0.204,
p = 0.001) and a marginally significant direct effect of the programme on the final
quality of the syntheses (a3 = 0.413, se = 0.235, p = 0.079). Contrary to the argu-
ment identification dependent variable, no statistically significant indirect effect
was detected for level of integration and the (total indirect effect = 0.153, se = 0.189,
p = 0.419, CI 95% [− 0.218–0.523]).
The mediation analysis for level of integration showed a direct effect of the pro-
gramme on the integration quality of the syntheses in the two intermediate and final
6
We conducted an alternative mediation analysis in which the heterogeneity of each pair (measured
with SD within each pair) and in addition, the maximum score of each member of the pair, predicting
the quality of the written synthesis. The mediation analysis was replicated including these covariates,
(i.e., virtually, the same effects, indirect and direct, were found after including SD and a maximum score
of each pair in the mediation analysis). The only remarkable factor was a marginally significant direct
effect of the maximum score of each pair on the final identification collaborative syntheses (Est. = 0.269,
se = 0.144, p = 0.062) and a significant direct effect of the maximum score of each pair in the 2nd Inte-
gration Intermediate Collaborative Synthesis (Est. = 0.399, se = 0.163, p = .014).
13
moments. In this case, synthesis written on practice in pairs sessions did not rein-
force the effect of the programme in the final synthesis.
Taking this result into account, and in addition to those obtained in the descrip-
tive analysis, we concluded that explicit instruction on both the writing and col-
laboration processes could be important to develop higher integrative collaborative
syntheses.
Discussion
Contributions of the study
The present study was designed to meet two main objectives. The first was to test the
effectiveness of an intervention programme (CPG + EICS) in comparison with three
other intervention programmes in which the help provided to the students was pro-
gressively reduced, on the final quality of collaborative written syntheses, in a sub-
sample of pairs of students who showed a low proficiency level in the collaborative
writing of argumentative synthesis. The second objective was to evaluate the direct
and indirect effects via the practice in pairs of the explicit instruction on the quality
of the final syntheses.
Regarding the first objective, the results corroborated the first and second hypoth-
eses. In accordance with our expectations, differences were found between the
effects of the two programmes that included explicit instruction (CPG + ECIS and
CPG + EIS) versus those that did not, in either of the two dimensions of analysis
(CPG and CP). In addition, the pairs with low proficiency in the more complete
programme (CPG + EICS) identified a higher proportion of arguments and achieved
a higher level of integration than those who did not receive explicit instruction on
collaboration processes (CPG + EIS). In summary, offering explicit instruction
focused on the processes of writing and collaboration jointly was the most effective
aid to improving synthesis in the two dimensions of analysis. Thus, explicit instruc-
tion helped students overcome the “my-side bias” (Wolf et al., 2009) by including
relevant arguments and information from the two contradictory sources in their
syntheses.
Concerning argument identification, these results corroborate the importance of
providing explicit instruction. However, although in previous studies to achieve a
synthesis with a higher proportion of arguments identified from sources, explicit
instruction was effective in the writing processes, or in both writing and collabora-
tion processes (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019; Mateos et al., 2018), in the present
research a slight difference has been found. Our findings show that argument iden-
tification was higher when explicit instruction addressed the process of writing and
the process of collaboration.
Thus, explicit instruction in collaborative processes has proven to be important in
teaching students with low initial proficiency in synthesis writing to identify argu-
ments. Similar results were found for the level of integration, supporting the pre-
vious evidence found (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019). Improving the level of inte-
gration of arguments and counterarguments required explicit instruction, compared
13
with the programmes that did not include any explicit instruction. Again, the pairs
that received explicit instruction focused on both writing and collaborative processes
achieved higher levels compared with those who were only instructed in the writing
processes.
The process of integrating information from multiple sources has proven highly
challenging for students (Barzilai et al., 2018). Reading and contrasting information
from multiple texts, especially when they are contradictory, increases the complexity
of the task (Mateos & Solé, 2009; Wolf et al., 2009). Furthermore, although there is
little evidence in this field, research suggests that low-proficiency university students
may use fewer strategies than high achievers (Rahmawati et al., 2019; Rijlaarsdam
et al., 2012). Therefore, explicit instruction aimed at unravelling both the writing
and collaboration processes could benefit pairs of students with low synthesis writ-
ing skills to a greater extent in the two dimensions of the analysis, compared to that
which was found in the previous study, where the explicit instruction of collabora-
tive processes only contributed significantly to the level of integration dimension. In
this sense, the explicit instruction of the more comprehensive programme helped,
on the one hand, students to use in their syntheses strategies involving balanced-rea-
soning, such as “weighing” and “synthesising”, to achieve argument-counterargu-
ment integration (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007). On the other hand, it also allowed
benefiting from collaboration during the practice in pairs. These results support the
idea that it is important to teach collaborative strategies explicitly, since it cannot be
assumed that students know how to work together (Thomas, 2014).
Continuing with the hypothesis testing, the third and fourth hypotheses linked
to the second main objective were confirmed. In terms of argument identification,
when the two intermediate syntheses were analysed, practice in pairs mediated the
effect of explicit instruction. This implies that practice in pairs reinforced the effect
of explicit instruction on both the writing and collaborative processes (CPG + EICS).
However, when the analysis focused on the level of integration, we found a direct
impact of the explicit instruction. In this case, the practice in pairs did not mediate
the effect of the explicit instruction on the level of integration.
These results support the evidence found and offer a better understanding of the
different interventions. When explicit instruction focuses on both the writing and the
collaboration processes/or the writing processes alone, a direct effect on the quality
of the intermediate and final syntheses is observed regarding to level of integration.
In addition, synthesis written during the practice in pairs fully mediated the effect
of the explicit instruction only on the dimension of argument identification. These
findings are similar to those obtained in the previous study by Mateos et al., (2020),
where it was found two learning paths based on the two variables analysed: argu-
ment identification and level of integration. These two learning paths were found in
the same direction: explicit instruction was a direct effect on both variables, while
practice in pairs only had an additional indirect effect on argument coverage. These
results could be indicating that, in line with the research by Kimmerle et al. (2007),
students need different aids to learn to write argumentative syntheses depending
on the stage of the collaborative writing process that they are in. In this sense, the
programme that included explicit instruction on collaborative processes had the
greatest effect on the two dimensions of the argument synthesis quality: argument
13
identification and level of integration. This more complete instruction helped

directly in the integration dimensions of quality of the syntheses and, in the case of
the argument identification; the practice in pairs reinforced this effect of the instruc-
tion on the quality of the final synthesis.
In this way, a tentative explanation could be that the help that explicit instruc-
tion on collaborative processes can offer to improve the quality of argumentative
syntheses is different depending on the nature of these two processes. Identifying
arguments is a simpler and less demanding process than integrating arguments. As a
result, explicit instruction on the writing process was reinforced through the synthe-
sis written during the practice in pairs. However, and as derived from our findings,
this effect could be maximised when the pair of students share an opinion on the
topic of discussion. That is, in the contexts that minimise controversy between the
pair and that could be a facilitator in the identification and selection process included
in the syntheses. However, the complexity of the integration process would lead to
the need to collaborate in a more strategic way, thus requiring explicit instruction of
the collaboration processes as well. This time, the practice in pairs did not reinforce
this effect. It is possible that unravelling collaborative processes helped the pairs of
students to become aware of the benefits of exchanging perspectives (Nykopp et al.,
2014) and making explicit and contrasting ideas (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) when
working collaboratively. However, the practice in pairs was not effective in reinforc-
ing what was learned. More support may be needed to consolidate this complex pro-
cess of integration.
Despite the evidence found in favour of explicit instruction as a necessary com-
ponent when learning to identify and integrate arguments, this paper raises new
questions. The sample selection did not allow high- and low-level pairs of students
to compare their ability to learn to write argumentative syntheses. The evidence in
this field is scarce and in future studies, it would be necessary to include students
with different initial levels. This would allow an investigation into whether weaker
writers benefited more from the aids offered and to analyse whether the complexity
of the task implies that only those who have low prior synthesis writing skills take
advantage of the benefits of collaboration. Furthermore, it would be necessary to
have a heterogeneous sample of students based on their previous opinion of the top-
ics. This would allow organizing pairs of both a high and low level of controversy
before the debates. This would enable an observation of the effects of any possible
controversy between the members of the pairs and to elucidate whether it promotes
the more effective use of collaboration strategies, benefiting the process of writing
argumentative synthesis.
Conclusions
This paper contributes to the previous research by providing new evidence that
explicit instruction is necessary to teach students to integrate arguments from con-
tradictory sources. In this study, even with a homogeneous sample of low-level stu-
dent pairs, this result is confirmed. Furthermore, the mediation analyses carried out
in this work also support the idea that there are two different learning paths for the
13
two dependent variables: explicit instruction in both the writing and collaboration
processes is effective in identifying and integrating arguments and in addition, prac-
tice in pairs mediates this effect only for argument identification.
These results give rise to some reflections. The evidence provided in this study
supports the idea that university students are not adequately prepared to face com-
plex writing tasks that involve high levels of thought processing (Butler & Britt,
2011). Despite this, our study shows that it is possible to teach them how to write
argumentative syntheses in collaboration. To this end, it is not enough to propose
activities without a specific objective or to administer support such as a guide with-
out instruction. These practices need to be supported by explicit teaching that ideally
should not only focus on the writing itself but also on how to collaborate effectively.
University teachers could be trained on the importance of including this type of aca-
demic activity, in line with that proposed by Newell et al. (2011). It is necessary to
insist on the idea that this type of writing task must be put into practice after explicit
teaching, considering the characteristics of the classroom, the students, and their
curriculum.
On the other hand, it appears that the specific task of writing argumentative syn-
theses involves two distinct processes: the identification and integration of argu-
ments. Therefore, the way to teach each of them may vary according to their com-
plexity, so it is essential to unravel this and provide adequate aids. Complex and
highly demanding processes such as argument integration would require explicit
teaching. However, the identification of arguments from texts, being a simpler pro-
cess, could be mechanized and automated through practice in pairs.
Limitations and future directions
Regardless of the findings of this work, our study has some limitations. Firstly it
should be noted that argumentation is a complex task that involves different fac-
ets and processes (e.g., Kuhn, 1991; Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007; Nussbaum, 2008a;
Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Toulmin, 1958; Walton, 1996). However, in
this study only some of these aspects have been addressed. Given the interest of
our line of research in the task of synthesising multiple sources, this study focuses
on the identification of the arguments provided by sources that present opposing
positions on controversial topics and on the strategies used to contrast and integrate
them. Therefore, the results found are limited only to the intervention on these pro-
cesses when students produce argumentative syntheses. Future studies could take
into account the incorporation of other facets of argumentation into the design and
development of interventions in collaborative writing synthesis.
On the other hand, the instruction is framed in a single teaching session, accom-
panied by two extra sessions of practice in pairs. Despite the brevity of the interven-
tion, it appears to be effective in improving the quality of collaboratively written
argumentative syntheses, showing low to moderate effect sizes. Therefore, in future
studies, it would be useful to increase the number of instruction and/or practice
sessions to see if the improvement is even greater. Also, the results enable us to
obtain information on the quality of the collaboratively written product, but not on
13
the processes. Analysing how students collaborate, the contribution each one makes
to the task, as well as the regulation strategies they put in place would be impera-
tive to obtain a deeper insight into how collaboration can be beneficial for synthesis
writing.
In terms of sample configuration, it would not only be necessary to increase the
sample size, but also to have a diverse sample of students with high and low pro-
ficiency in collaborative argumentative synthesis writing. For this reason, in the
future, it would be interesting to be able to purposively select a diverse sample of
high and low proficiency students. In this way, we could examine whether, as we
expect, students with low initial proficiency benefit to a greater extent than the other
students.
In short, this study offers suggestions on how to design effective interventions
to improve argumentative synthesis writing in collaboration in the university con-
text and provides an opportunity for further research considering the characteristics
of the study population and the context in which these types of writing tasks are
performed.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x.
Authors’ contributions Not applicable.
Funding The present study was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación State program ori-
ented to the challenges of society (I + D + i) (PID2019-105250RB-I00).
Availability of data and material Not applicable.
Code availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee of the Autónoma University of Madrid.
Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the
study.
References
Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in Higher Education. Routledge.
Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored ter-
ritories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.11554
58
Baker, M. J. (2004). Research on knowledge elaboration in dialogues. Habilitation in psychology, Uni-
versité Nancy 2, UK
Baker, M. J. (2016). The negotiation of meaning in epistemic situations. International Journal of Artifi-
cial Intelligence in Education, 26, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0050-3
13
Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of
instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 973–999. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8
Britt, M. A., Ritcher, T., & Rouet, J. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and
evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104–122. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217
Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative
essays. Written Communication, 28, 70–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310387891
Chien, S. C. (2012). Students’ use of writing strategies and their English writing achievements in Taiwan.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.655240
Coll, C., & Onrubia, J. (2001). Estrategias discursivas y recursos semióticos en la construcción de sis-
temas de significados compartidos entre profesor y alumnos [Discursive strategies and semiotic
resources in the construction of shared meaning systems between teacher and students]. Revista
Investigación En La Escuela, 45, 21–31.
Cuevas, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., Luna, M., Martín, A., Solari, M., González-Lamas, J., & Martínez, I.
(2016). Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses from multiple sources: The role of writing
beliefs and strategies in addressing controversy. Journal of Writing research, 8(2), 205–226. https://
doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.02
Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom. Journal of Educational
Research, 87, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1994.9941264
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instruc-
tional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91).
Heerlen.
Ferretti, R.P., & Lewis, W.E. (2013) Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In: S. Graham,
C.A. MacArthur, J. Fitzgerald. (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction, (pp. 113–140) Gilford.
Granado-Peinado, M., Mateos, M., Martin, E., & Cuevas, I. (2019). Teaching to write collaborative argu-
mentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing, 32, 2037–2058. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11145-019-09939-6
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Edu-
cational Researcher, 38, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08330540
Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D., & Cress, U. (2017). All in good time: Knowledge introduction,
restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing. Inter-
national Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients
for reliability research. The Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20, 269–306.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303257507
Mateos, M., Cuevas, I., Martín, E., Martín, A., Echeita, G., & Luna, M. (2011). Reading to write an argu-
mentation: The role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in Read-
ing, 34(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x
Mateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving
written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple
sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.14253
00
Mateos, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Solari, M. (2020). Learn-
ing paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome?
Instructional Science, 48, 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09508-3
Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and
products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435–
451. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760
Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2022). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources.
Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5
13
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & Van Der Heide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative
reading and writing in school contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304. https://doi.
org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4
Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008a). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature
review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2008.06.001
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008b). Using Argumentation Vee Diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument–coun-
terargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549–565.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
Nussbaum, E. M. (2020). Critical integrative argumentation: Toward complexity in students’ thinking.
Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476183
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework
for enhancing and analysing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20,
443–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’
writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59–92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
Nykopp, N., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2014). University students’ knowledge construction during
face to face collaborative writing. In P. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati (Eds.), Writing
as a learning activity (pp. 277–299). Brill.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. UK: Uni-
versity of Notre Dame Press.
Perin, D., Lauterbach, M., Raufman, J., & Kalamkarian, H. S. (2017). Text-based writing of low-skilled
postsecondary students: Relation to comprehension, self-efficacy, and teacher judgments. Reading
and Writing, 30, 887–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9706-0
Rahmawati, N., Fauziati, E., & Marmanto, S. (2019). Writing strategies used by indonesian high and low
achievers. International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 4(2), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.
5281/zenodo.3556958
Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Tillema, M., Van Steendam,
E., & Raedts, M. (2012). Writing. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. G. Bus, S. Major, & H.
L. Swanson (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Application to learning and teaching
(pp. 189–227). UK: American Psychological Association.
Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2014). Promoting critical, elaborative dis-
cussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science: An Interna-
tional Journal of the Learning Sciences, 42, 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5
Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.),
Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). Springer-Verlag.
Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing
strategies. In: G. Rijlarsdaam, M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cogni-
tion: Research and applications (Studies in Writing, pp. 231–250). Elsevier.
Song, Y., & Ferretti, R. P. (2013). Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revising
process: Effects of strategy instruction on college students’ argumentative essays. Reading and Writ-
ing, 26, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9381-8
Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. Aca-
demic Press.
Szigriszt-Pazos, F. (2001). Sistemas predictivos de legibilidad del mensaje escrito: fórmula de perspi-
cuidad [Predictive systems for readability of the written message: perspicuity formula]. (Doctoral
Thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Thomas, T. A. (2014). Developing team skills through a collaborative writing assignment. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 479–495.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van Steendam, E. (2015). Writing process theory: A functional
dynamic approach. In C. A. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 57–71). Guilford.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Erlbaum.
13
Van Ockenburg, L., Van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to write synthesis texts: A
review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10, 402–428. https://doi.org/10.17239/
jowr-2019.10.03.01
Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of
argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How
does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001
Voss, J. F., & Van Dicke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in Psychology: Background comments. Discourse
Processes, 32, 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Erlbaum.
Wiley, J., Steffens, B., Britt, A., & Griffin, T. D. (2014). Writing to learn from multiple-source inquiry
activities in history. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. C. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati
(Eds.), Writing as a learning activity (pp. 120–148). Brill.
Wolf, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written
Argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Affiliations
Miriam Granado‑Peinado1 · Isabel Cuevas2 · Ricardo Olmos3 ·

Elena Martín2 · Lidia Casado‑Ledesma5 · Mar Mateos4
* Miriam Granado‑Peinado
miriam.granado@ufv.es
1
Faculty of Education and Psychology, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Ctra.
Pozuelo‑Majadahonda Km 1, 800, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Social Psychology and Methodology, Autonomous University of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
4
Department of Basic Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
5
Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology, University
of Florence, Florence, Italy
13

Collaborative Writing of Argumentative Syntheses by Low Performing Undergraduate Writers: Explicit Instruction and Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collaborative Writing of Argumentative Syntheses by Low Performing Undergraduate Writers: Explicit Instruction and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading and Writing (2023) 36:909–936

Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses

Miriam Granado‑Peinado1 · Isabel Cuevas2 · Ricardo Olmos3 ·

Accepted: 16 May 2022 / Published online: 12 June 2022

Keywords Argumentative synthesis · Collaborative writing · Higher education ·

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Argumentation, considered essential for effective participation in twenty-first cen-

The construction of argumentative syntheses from multiple texts

(intertextual integration) (Segev-Miller, 2007). These sources may offer comple-

interesting to teach in this study is that of integrating information from multiple

Previous intervention studies on argumentative synthesis tasks

Explicit instruction on writing strategies

Instructional strategies aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing have been

Previous studies within our line of research

The present study

it was necessary to additionally analyse intermediate syntheses written during the

1. The differential impact of an intervention programme which combined explicit

Additionally, in line with previous study (Mateos et al., 2020), we expected

Participants were 112 third-year psychology students comprising (13,6% male

Table 1 Distribution of the 112 students in the four intervention programmes

CPG + EICS 30 (15) 26,78% 5 27 15,6% 84,4%

Instruments and material

Explicit instruction with video‑modelling

In the programmes that included explicit instruction (CPG + EICS and

Collaborative practice in pairs

Texts for collaborative writing synthesis tasks

Design and implementation

0 Personal opinion A personal opinion not based on the source texts

ments from both positions

Analysis of the impact of the programmes on the quality of the collaborative

1st Intermediate 1st Intermediate

a1= 0.064** b23= 0.289*

Programme Final Collaborative

respect to the CPG + EIS group, se = 0.235, p = 0.033). Non-significant differences

Mediation analysis to examine the effect of the intervention programmes

a1 = 0.796** b23 = -0.035

Programme Final Collaborative

Contributions of the study

identification and level of integration. This more complete instruction helped

Limitations and future directions

Authors’ contributions Not applicable.

Availability of data and material Not applicable.

Code availability Not applicable.

Authors and Affiliations

Miriam Granado‑Peinado1 · Isabel Cuevas2 · Ricardo Olmos3 ·

You might also like